SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF UDAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Parekh raised the preliminary objection and submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on the following grounds:

(2.) MR . Parekh has submitted that the petitioner is guilty of making unfounded and baseless allegations against the former Vice Chancellor, Dr. P. S. Lamba. He has submitted that Dr. P.S. Lamba has been ousted from office of the Vice Chancellor is wholly unfounded and false. It will be clear that Dr. P. S. Lamba had tendered his resignation from the post of the Vice Chancellor, University of Udaipur, and the Chancellor had accepted his resignation, and he has produced a copy of Ex. R3 to substantiate the fact of resignation. He has further submitted that the petitioner has alleged that the stay order had been passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2315 of 1974 filed by him to the effect that the petitioner will continue to be paid his emoluments without any deduction whatsoever during the period of his suspension, and he has concealed very important part of it. His submission is that the petitioner has wholly distorted the order dated 3.10.74 passed by this Court vide Ex. R 1. He has invited my attention to show that the order is conditional and the petitioner has not referred at all about the conditions which have been imposed in the order. The condition precedent was that the excess amount over and above the subsistence allowance, which shall be paid to the petitioner in pursuance of the order Ex. R 1, shall be recovered from the provident fund of the petitioner in the University, in case the writ petition is dismissed.

(3.) MR . Parekh has also submitted that the petitioner has also distorted that the enquiry which was commenced against the petitioner out of spite and as such the then Vice Chancellor Ranveer Singh reinstated the petitioner vide his order dated 25.8.77. The petitioner has concealed the fact that the re -instatement of the petitioner was not unconditional but in fact there was a condition that the reinstatement of the petitioner is without prejudice to such a disciplinary action which might become necessary as a result of finding of the enquiry being conducted by Mr. V.D. Sharma, Enquiry Officer, and has produced Ex. R 1/2 to substantiate the submission made by him.